Which brings us to the strange case of President Obama’s decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.

Eggleston is the kind of guy you go to when someone tells you, “time to lawyer up.” [snip]

Which begs and pleads the question, is Obama looking for more protection for the White House from the various GOP congressional probes, or is he aware of the possibility that something much, much worse could break?

We’ve been calling for a select committee almost from the day of the Benghazi attack as the only way to get answers. The Issa committee has been so incompetent that we still don’t even know simple things like “where was Barack Obama?” on that night. Did he go to bed early in order to be fresh for his fundraising trip to California then next day? Where was Obama and what did he do?

The likely Chairman of the select committee on Benghazi is the smart Trey Gowdy whose efforts in the IRS investigation so outclassed Chairman Issa. Perhaps Trey Gowdy will not get distracted by side issues and thereby get the answer to the question that matters: Why was the United States unprepared on September 11 for a potential commemorative attack by Muslim creeps and why was the United States without a quick response military team ready to go on the night of September 11?

From the very beginning, on September 11, 2012, we made several points about the terror attacks and deaths of American diplomatic personnel in Benghazi which prove with every passing day to be more and more astute and accurate.

The truth-seeking points we have made from the very beginning, which have not been popular with partisans on any side, are: (1) the central issue and only issue is that this was a terror attack purposely staged on the September 11 anniversary of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the question that must be answered is why the United States was not prepared on a world-wide basis for attacks from Al Qaeda on that very special date; (2) Barack Obama is to blame; (3) the C.I.A. is a major player in all this and until we get honest testimony about what the Benghazi base was really about this will all add up to much of nothing; (4) Big Media is complicit in the Barack Obama cover-up of the death dealing scandals centered around Benghazi; (5) Hillary Clinton will come out smelling like a rose.

Shortly after we made the above 5 points we added a few others: (1) a select committee or a special prosecutor is needed to get answers from Barack Obama and his henchmen; (2) the investigations have been bungled almost beyond repair. We’ll expound on all these points in no particular order and as briefly as possible.

Let’s look at how the Benghazi investigations have been completely bungled.

The latest Benghazi “bombshell” is a memo written by then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Benjamin Rhodes which leads directly to the White House as lying creators of the talking points on Benghazi in order to corruptly advance the election of one Barack Obama.

Proof of the bungled Benghazi investigation is clear when one considers that this Benghazi bombshell memo is now public due to the efforts of the private organization Judicial Watch, not congressional investigators. Congressional investigators are unable to find sh*t on a pig farm it seems.

But this talking points memo is a minor detail in what congressional investigators should be focused on. What should congressional investigators be focused on? How about the only fact that matters. The only fact that matters? What is that? Well, the only fact that matters is our original point #1: (1) the central issue and only issue is that this was a terror attack purposely staged on the September 11 anniversary of the Al Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center and the question that must be answered is why the United States was not prepared on a world-wide basis for attacks from Al Qaeda on that very special date

And by the way, are we asking too much when we say that the brother of Benjamin Rhodes might be someone that should be mentioned in a consistent manner by anyone who wants to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi? It’s all about Big Media complicity in the cover-up of deadly lies concerning the Benghazi terror attack:

Today, Lasky notes that Rhodes’s brother heads CBS News, which recently lost reporter Sharyl Attkisson – at least partly, she alleges, because the network did not like her reporting on Benghazi and other Obama administration scandals, including Operation Fast & Furious.

CBS President David Rhodes, brother of Benjamin Rhodes, got rid of Sharly Attkisson in part because of her Benghazi reports. Does anyone think that is is a fact worth emphasizing? Does anyone think that maybe CBS can be shamed into at least mentioning the Benghazi scandal in their network news broadcasts if congressional committees or someone/something consistently mentions this sibling Big Media connection?

Congressional investigators can’t find sh*t on a pig farm, blood in a blood bank, or ugly outfits in Michelle Obama’s closet. It’s more than time for a select committee of experienced prosecutors with a hired experienced prosecutor for staff lawyer that knows how to ask questions and get answers. What we have now is an army of fools trying to prove what is more than obvious to everyone: the September 11 2012 attack in Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack.

But most importantly how about sticking to what matters and not the peripheral? Today, Darryl Issa’s congressional committee is once again investigating everything but the central issue about Benghazi. Instead of demanding to know why the United States was unprepared on SEPTEMBER 11 for a terrorist attack, the committee gloried in post-terrorist attack musings from a USAF general: “We should have tried” to respond to Benghazi attack.

Um, isn’t the question that needs to be answered why the United States was not on alert on September 11 for a terrorist attack? A focus on lack of preparation and “we should have tried” after the attacks sort of misses the point doesn’t it?

Missing the point has been the hallmark of congressional investigators. On October 10, 2012 the Issa’s Government Oversight Committee held a hearing on Benghazi. We tried to help the committee unravel the Sunday Susan Rice “Libya Fibya”:

First draw the organizational chart. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State and she runs the State Department. But it is not that simple. Recall that in 2009 Barack Obama put in one of his enforcers as the #2 at the State Department in order to thwart Hillary Clinton and to keep eyes on her.

Recall also that Susan Rice, an Obama supporter in 2008, was placed by Obama without Hillary Clinton’s input as United Nations Ambassador. Rice was supposed to be a power center against Hillary Clinton and therefore was also given cabinet level status and a direct line to Barack Obama without having to go through the Secretary of State.

Also in 2009 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was purposefully circumvented when Obama appointed special envoys to coordinate policy with him, not Hillary, in major areas of foreign policy. [snip]

Susan Rice was deployed by Barack Obama to go on political shows in order to lie about what happened in Libya. It was the Sunday of the Libya Fibya.

Hillary Clinton refused to go on the Sunday talk shows to do the Libya Fibya and Obama did not trust her to go on the Sunday talk shows to Libya Fibya on his behalf. Still, many believe that Hillary Clinton 2016 is cooked, burnt to a crisp, because of Benghazi.

We’ll have more to say on Hillary Clinton’s record at the State Department and what she did there in an upcoming post. For now we can say that the full record of Hillary Clinton and Benghazi is yet to be written. Answers will have to be provided and the truth of what happened in Benghazi revealed fully. But is Hillary Clinton 2016 doomed because of Benghazi? Um, no.

What do the latest Benghazi revelations tell us about Hillary Clinton 2016? Karl Rove talking to Bill O’Reilly on April 30 thinks Hillary Clinton 2016 is helped by the Ben Rhodes Benghazi memo.

Starting at 3:45, after a good summary discussion of the latest events, Bill O’Reilly gets to what everyone is politics-wise interested in. At the 4:50 mark, Karl Rove with O’Reilly in full agreement says that Hillary Clinton 2016 will run away from Barack Obama, blame Barack Obama, and succeed because of the separation from Barack Obama.

Karl Rove thinks that it is “ironic” that the Ben Rhodes memo will help Hillary Clinton 2016. What is really ironic is that one of Hillary Clinton’s most virulent enemies in the White House will unwittingly provide the knife to stick in the backstabbing Barack Obama.

So where are we in Benghazi? We still require a select committee to investigate Benghazi. If not Benghazi is nowhere. The Benghazi investigation goes nowhere.

At some point the truth about what happened in Benghazi will emerge. As we wrote in September 12, 2012 the truth should have emerged before the November 2012 elections. But that did not happen. The truth will have to emerge before 2016 if not before November 2014.

The CBS Evening News on Wednesday ignored one of the day’s top news stories: the revelation that White House aide Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS president David Rhodes — instructed Susan Rice to emphasize a false talking point about the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

In a White House email chain recently obtained through a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, Ben Rhodes urged Rice “[t]o underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy” ahead of her infamous appearance on several Sunday shows.

The decision by CBS to ignore the story made the network unique among the nightly news broadcasts.

ABC World News ran a lengthy segment on the revelations, saying the White House was “feeling the heat” and that the “email seems to call into question what the White House said about its role” in deceiving the public about the cause of the Benghazi attacks.

ABC’s Jonathan Karl was especially aggressive in his questioning of the White House Wednesday afternoon, grilling press secretary Jay Carney about the administration’s failure to be forthcoming.

Likewise, NBC Nightly News highlighted the new emails Wednesday night, with Brian Williams saying they “reveal more about the effort to get then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to assert on the Sunday morning talk shows that the attack on the U.S. Consulate was a result of a demonstration over an internet video and not a failure of administration policy.”

“It isn’t the crime. It is the coverup.”
*****
If Larry Johnson and others are correct, it is the crime that is important. The speculation is that two covert arms operations were being conducted out of the Benghazi CIA office. One, legal, trying to recover anti-aircraft missiles; the second, for which no Presidential “finding” had been sent to Congress involved Libyan arms to Syria via Turkey. If this was occurring without notifying congress then it was a criminal enterprise and well worth, from Obama’s perspective, trying to cover up.

Admin, this is a very encouraging post. Some of us have felt from the beginning that Hillary did not bear the responsibility for this tragic fiasco. For one thing, There were a few clues immediately following the incident that hinted at her disgust with the the handling of this. Additionally, although it may seem naive to presume that her principles would have not permitted involvement, Hillary’s relationship with her staff over the years, her concern and support for them and her advocacy on their behalf are well known. these qualities are incongruent with accusations of her negligence when lives were at stake.

I keep thinking about the language she used one of her interviews about Benghazi. she asserted State Dept”s innocence in the matter.adding quickly, (paraphrasing) I cannot speak for the other departments involved.. It just seemed like a strange and unHillary-like thing to say. Typically, she is all about unity, cooperation, taking a stand with the other parties involved. I made an effort not to make wishful inferences about this and tried to consider the matter objectively. But, the words Hillary used and her tone of voice seemed to imply that when the truth came out, it would be clear that the blame for this rested with others, and that she would not take the blame she didn’t deserve.

Admin, I’m glad you mentioned the Obama insider whose job it was to keep Hillary in check. as if that lightweight could keep up with Hillary. In the discussion of Benghazi right after the tragedy, almost nothing was said about that arrangement and her ability to by pass Hillary, and go directly to The One.

II do believe Hillary will be very rose-like when the dust clears from this – unless the progs or right wingnuts or Barack, use BO’s hacks in media to tweak the facts a little.

Seems to me that politics is infested with fleas, and you don’t have to lie down with the dogs to get them all over you..

I peeked over at DU earlier expecting to find the kiddies working on creative ways to alter the truth about the WH’s role related to Benghazi cover-up. Surprisingly, I saw no mention of the issue. They were focused on something much more relevant and important-pics of MO and BO luvin’ it up in front of some group at the WH. In one pic I think MO was going for a sexy scowl, and looked as if she were about to bite BO’s bottom lip off. I’m not sure why they were posing as Mr. and Mrs. Hot and Bothered in front of this group. Nor did I bother to read what kind of group it was – possibly, The Association for the Promotion of Pretend Presidential Luv Machines and their Pouty Wives.

The caption was – :Love is alive in the White House”. I figured it was referring to a hook-up between Valjar and some unfortunate aide she had dressed up in black leather, and was beating the snot out of, but but not so.

Not posting the link for obvious reasons. The kiddies are easy to google.

Rove’s mention of Jake Sullivan is important. He was Hillary’s top policy advisor and along with Cheryl Mills helped shape Hillary’s every move. Which means that Hillary was aware of this Rhodes memo, but Sullivan and/or Mills probably advised her not to take it to the public on Sunday. But she had to say something on Sept 12 when the bodies were brought back. Pretty bad slip, I guess.

Unemployment rate ticked down again. TV insanely happy about jobs numbers too. But
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The U.S. labor-force participation rate sank to 62.8% in April from 63.2% in March to match a 35-year low, the government reported Friday. Some 806,000 people dropped out of the labor force, according to Labor Department figures. The commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Erica Groshen, said: “Our analysis of the household survey suggests the labor force decline was mostly due to fewer people entering the labor force than usual, rather than more people exiting the labor force.”http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-labor-force-participation-rate-falls-sharply-in-april-2014-05-02

A new Elon University poll shows that incumbent Senator Kay Hagan (D., N.C.) is in bad shape as she tries to defend her seat in the 2014 midterms, and suggests that her support for Obamacare is largely to blame.

Just 35 percent of registered voters approve of Hagan’s job performance, according to the poll, compared to 47 percent who disapprove. Only 31 percent of independent voters, and just 36 percent of women, said they approved of Hagan’s job performance.

When respondents who disapproved of Hagan’s performance were asked to explain their disapproval, Hagan’s support for Obamacare was the most frequent response (14 percent), while nearly 8 percent said that Hagan was too close to President Obama.

Opposition to Obamacare appears to be a driving force behind Hagan’s struggles, with 47 percent of voters saying Hagan’s support for the unpopular law makes them less likely to vote for her, compared with 36 percent who said it would make them more likely to vote for her.

This sentiment is echoed across all age groups, even the millennial generation:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is announcing today that he intends for the House to vote to create a new select committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans. He released the following statement:

“Americans learned this week that the Obama Administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the People’s House. These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen. In light of these new developments, the House will vote to establish a new select committee to investigate the attack, provide the necessary accountability, and ensure justice is finally served.

“The administration’s withholding of documents – emails showing greater White House involvement in misleading the American people – is a flagrant violation of trust and undermines the basic principles of oversight upon which our system of government is built. And it forces us to ask the question, what else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?

“The House committees that have been investigating this attack have done extraordinary work, using their subpoena power, holding dozens of hearings, and conducting hundreds of interviews. Without this work we would not know much that we do today. But it’s clear that questions remain, and the administration still does not respect the authority of Congress to provide proper oversight. This dismissiveness and evasion requires us to elevate the investigation to a new level. I intend for this select committee to have robust authority, and I will expect it to work quickly to get answers for the American people and the families of the victims.

“Four Americans died at the hands of terrorists nearly 20 months ago, and we are still missing answers, accountability, and justice. It’s time that change.”

“Check out White House spokesman Tommy Vietor and chief speechwriter Jon Favreau partaking in an impromptu, shirtless beer pong match at Old Glory in Georgetown on Sunday.”
******
The wife and I were walking up and down M street Sunday and the “Old Glory” was packed with loud, drunk, “creative class”, Obot parasites. Your tax dollars at play.

“WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is announcing today that he intends for the House to vote to create a new select committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans. He released the following statement:”
*******
“Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has championed his proposal to appoint a select committee for over a year, and had obtained 190 Republican cosponsors on a bill to do so. Wolf had recently suggested Boehner was resisting the select committee because he had briefed on unknown activities by the U.S. government that were occurring in Libya prior to the attack. Boehner is a member of a group of top congressional leaders regularly briefed on the actions of the intelligence community.”

I think that Frank Wolf has identified the real issue of why the coverup. The focus on the attack, dead Americans, incompetence, etc. are, IMO, part of the coverup of the “unknown activities”.

We’ve been calling for a select committee almost from the day of the Benghazi attack as the only way to get answers. The Issa committee has been so incompetent that we still don’t even know simple things like “where was Barack Obama?” on that night. Did he go to bed early in order to be fresh for his fundraising trip to California then next day? Where was Obama and what did he do?

The likely Chairman of the select committee on Benghazi is the smart Trey Gowdy whose efforts in the IRS investigation so outclassed Chairman Issa. Perhaps Trey Gowdy will not get distracted by side issues and thereby get the answer to the question that matters: Why was the United States unprepared on September 11 for a potential commemorative attack by Muslim creeps and why was the United States without a quick response military team ready to go on the night of September 11?

The White House lawyered up with the appointment of a top white collar criminal defense lawyer as White House counsel at the same time the court ordered the release of the emails to Judicial Watch. They knew this was probably going to blow up. The White House defensive action also had to play a part in Boehner’s acquiescence. His idiotic attack on immigration foes and a member accusing him of being a party to top secret briefings on arms dealing in Libya didn’t give him much room to resist. Lucky breaks are running out for the White House.

Opposition to Obamacare appears to be a driving force behind Hagan’s struggles, with 47 percent of voters saying Hagan’s support for the unpopular law makes them less likely to vote for her, compared with 36 percent who said it would make them more likely to vote for her.

This sentiment is echoed across all age groups, even the millennial generation:

______________

Yet, Pelosi and other Dems are still calling for Dem candidates to embrace Obamacare. i saw another article calling for that just today – don’t even remember who wrote it. – just another generic Obama Dim.

For candidates like Nancy, not facing a likely loss to a Repub, it’s no big deal to ask Dims to campaign on NoCare. They don’t risk being tossed out of their jobs. They do, however risk losing seats in congress, so it would seem to be in their best interest to support a candidate who turns on Ocare, if it appears that will give that candidate a better chance of winning. I’ll bet Nancy and other Dem officials and pundits are singing the We Love Obamacare song publicly, but privately, they’re sending signals encouraging candidates to distance themselves from the stink bomb. Obama has already given them permission to dis his unhealthy plan. Maybe that’s all the approval the candidates need. This would leave the other Dim officials free to call for unity and support of ACA out of it, all the while knowing that a number of Dim candidates must and will do otherwise. Sneaky bunch, aren’t they.

SHV, makes you proud, doesn’t it – seeing your tax dollars being used to pay such fine, intelligent young men?

BO probably doesn’t even realize that when his employees act like fools, it reflect badly on him. But even if they don’t have to worry about the boss, you would think they would have better sense than to be half-naked and drunk in a public place. Hell, their mothers should have taught them better than that.

As much as I admire Trey’s attempt to get the truth out in the hearings, I am very disappointed to not see the committee follow though with the subpoenas to get redacted records opened up completely, and for those that took the Fifth to talk.

The only people that will hold Hillary completely responsible for the incident are GOPers that will not vote for her anyway. Remember how they made a big deal out of her being shot at while in the middle east, for the 2008 election.

They will hang Bill’s infidelity on her
They will hang a murder on her
They will hold her responsible for the deaths in Benghazi
They will accuse her of stealing money from the State Department
They will hold her age and gender against her
They will hold her party against her
They will hold her body image against her
And they will hold her blood clot against her

Anyone running against her will have little history, be a minority, male and right wing. No one leaning towards the middle like Mitt, McCain nor Rubio.

I would bet a week’s pay that Hillary has got the documents, tapes, emails, whatever to prove she was not responsible. Now, whether MSM will ever allow it to be seen on a national scale is another matter. We know FOX won’t. The liberal media will be trying to decide whether to cover anything that gives her an advantage without knowing who might run against her in the primary. If the Progs can talk Warren into running, or another of her ilk, liberal media will make a real effort not to have any proof of Hillary’s innocence given nationwide exposure. Some of FOX people will do the same. As Shadow said, they have accused her of everything but causing effing climate change, and they’ll find a way to do that if at all possible.

My money’s on Hillary, regardless. If she wants the presidency, and that may be a big “if”, she has a damn good shot, regardless of what the Progs or Pubs do. Hell, at this point, Americans are worrying about the stuff that effects them directly in the present moment. They know that things were better under Bill than anyone else. They’ll assume Hillary’s ideology and way of governing will be very similar.

Shadowfax, the reason why a select committee is so important is that now there is one committee in charge of the investigation. The select committee will also (hopefully) be populated with those Representatives that have experience as prosecutors or know how to question witnesses. Further committee staff will be selected for the specific task of getting to what happened – meaning they will be hired as you would a good investigative team.

The other big plus is that the select committee will be able to take depositions before any public hearings. This means that the staff lawyers hired by the committee will be able to depose witnesses for hours and hours and confront the witnesses with testimony from other witnesses. Also, because it is a select committee they can examine witnesses from all departments and agencies of government not just the departments specific committees are tasked with overseeing.

The select committee will also likely be given a deadline for their report to be submitted so this Benghazi business will not go on forever. [Hint for Hillary staff: get everything out this year before the midterms.]

I love Trey Gowdy, however, he IS a Republican so we can’t be assured he will NOT go after Hillary no matter what. We shall soon see if he is fair and wants the truth of what happened or if he is just another partisan hack. Power can do strange things to seemingly good people so we shall see.

Southern Born, Hillary has been questioned for hours and hours and hours on end for decades. Remember the pink Chanel hours long press conference on everything? Remember Ken Starr? Hillary knows how to take care of herself. We’re not worried.

In either case, HoldThemAccountable has the right name for how we must treat all our nation’s leaders. We don’t think Hillary is the one to blame for this and still assert she will come out smelling like a rose. We’ll see and let the chips fall where they may. Our concern is that the Obama thugs try to drive a bus over Hillary. We think Hillary should drive the bus over Obama first.

“Obama will come out of this, well, smelling up a storm.” From your mouth to everyone’s ears. Administrator, you hit my fear exactly although I know Hillary is very skilled and experienced with these matters. But will the Republicans and the media encourage/allow Obama thugs to drive a bus over Hillary therefore ignoring the truth of Benghazi?

We are well aware that there are Dems and Reps who would like nothing better than to pin this on Hillary or damage her greatly to knock her out.

I’m going to hang on to your words though. BO will come out of this smelling up a storm or even better, stinking like a hog pen.

Which brings us to the strange case of President Obama’s decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.

Eggleston is the kind of guy you go to when someone tells you, “time to lawyer up.” [snip]

Which begs and pleads the question, is Obama looking for more protection for the White House from the various GOP congressional probes, or is he aware of the possibility that something much, much worse could break?

I wanted to say what an excellent organization Judicial Watch is. One service they provide is obtaining and making available Financial Disclosure Reports, including those of our corrupt federal judiciary. If you have a case and want to see the judges FDR, he gets to see the request for it. A very intimidating procedure. If they do not have the one of interest, they will get it for you. In the Fifth Circuit, I found that half the judges sitting on cases for the Oil&Gas Industry, had interests in the business they were judging. If you have a few extra dollars – make a donation.

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame.

The private, internal communication directly contradicts the message that President Obama,
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and White House
press secretary Jay Carney repeated publicly over the course of the next several weeks.
They often maintained that an anti-Islamic YouTube video inspired a spontaneous
demonstration that escalated into violence.

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary
of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at
9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.
(snip)

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

If Barack let it be known that he expected her to say that it the attack was because of the film, and that everyone connected to WH would be giving that same response in media interviews and press releases, what were her options?

1) She could have said, hell no Barack, that ain’t happening, the result of which would have been a media frenzy, a confused public, even worse, confused and devastated family members of victims. A public disagreement between the WH and the Dept of State at that particular time would have made the US appear weaker and even more foolish to the world in general, and to any other would be terrorists looking for a good time to launch another attack. This country would have looked even more divided that it actually is.

2) She could find a way to insert the statement she was told to say, while saying it in a way that did not lend any credence to the explanation she was told to give. I think that’s exactly what she did. She was the first one to say it was likely a terrorist attack.

Yet, effing Fact Check’s timeline says BARACK said it might have been terrorists on 09-12. My recollection was that Hillary was the first one to publicly mention the terrorist likelihood.

Then we have F**king Hot Air using Sharyl Atkkinson’s info to blame the whole damn thing on Hillary – article below.

IMHO the damn media and GOP officials who are trying to distort the facts and lay this on Hillary don’t give a shit about Benghazi or the people who died. They want to make political points. Those who are looking for a way, not to find the truth, but to make Hillary the responsible party, are committing an act as sorry and low down as the ones in the WH who made up the protest shit to begin with. I swear those GOP bastards will make you hate them even when you are trying to find a way not to.

Here’s the damn article:

Sharyl Attkisson: E-mail shows State Dep’t knew the day after the Benghazi attack that jihadis were behind it
POSTED AT 3:31 PM ON MAY 2, 2014 BY ALLAH PUNDIT

Somehow this slipped through the cracks for me yesterday amid all the other Benghazi news, but Noah Rothman flagged it today and now I’m flagging it too. Simple question from Attkisson: If State had concluded as early as the day after the attack that a jihadi group was responsible, why was Hillary Clinton blaming the Mohammed video at the memorial service two days later? Here’s the key e-mail, which was cc’d to various people at State, describing a conversation with the Libyan ambassador. The author’s name is redacted.

bj

Timestamp: September 12, 2012, at 12:46 p.m. Less than 24 hours after Stevens was killed, they were already pointing the finger at Ansar al-Sharia, not a protest mob angered by the video that got out of control. But how’d they get the name Ansar al-Sharia? The (possible) answer to that comes earlier in the e-mail chain, on the day of the attack itself. Timestamp: September 11, 2012, 5:55 p.m.

So here’s the question. Did State know for a fact based on independent intelligence that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible before they started blaming the video, or do these e-mails simply show them relying on the group’s own claim of responsibility as evidence in the early chaotic hours afterward? If it’s the former, then introducing the video into the talking-point mix really was a deliberate attempt to hide the truth. If it’s the latter, then maybe it’s a simple matter of State having revised its assessment over the next few days as the CIA produced new information about what happened. Remember, the first official CIA talking points on September 14th said, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.” They were surely aware too that Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack but their first pass at explaining what happened blamed it on a spontaneous protest. Did they get new information between the 12th and 14th to steer them away from “Ansar al-Sharia did it” or did they deliberately steer it that way themselves to protect the White House? I’

Sorry – only the second, third, and fourth lines of my post above were from Fact Check. I’m sure that was easy to figure out, but I meant to post it as a quote, and failed to do so. Fingers were flying on the keyboard about as fast as 4 letter words were flying from my mouth. My family thinks I have Tourette Syndrome. All they can tell is that I’m staring at the computer screen, cussing like a sailor.

(CNN) — Coming home from Asia, Barack Obama is obviously going through another rough patch in his presidency. But this time, it could be more dangerous: He is perilously close to becoming a lame duck 33 months before he leaves office. That is bad for him, bad for the country and bad for the world.

The second term of a presidency often follows an arc. As Lyndon Johnson told his aides after his landslide victory in 1964, you’ve got about a year to get things done at home. And second-term presidents have often seized on those early months for domestic accomplishments. After that, Washington becomes mired in midterm politicking, and in your third year, people start looking over your shoulder at who is coming next.

With power seeping away at home, second-termers increasingly turn their attention overseas, where they can still get big things done as commander in chief of the most powerful nation in history. That’s why presidents spend so much time on the road in their final years.

Obama’s second term is a total aberration. Resisted by obstructionists among Republicans and plagued by his own mistakes, the first 12 months after re-election were a bust. Why he and his team didn’t take more care in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act website will remain one of the great mysteries for historians.

But it has now become equally puzzling why he has not become more sure-footed in foreign affairs. He is one of the brightest men ever to occupy the office, and yet his learning curve has been among the flattest. Talking to players on the world stage — most of whom still want him to succeed — one finds them genuinely rattled, worried about a lack of national will and operational competence.

On the tail end of his Asia trip, Obama told the press that in foreign policy, he thinks a president hits mostly singles and doubles and an occasional home run. It was odd enough that given his huge power and influence, he thinks small ball. But he also raised the question: Why so long between home runs? When was the last one? Three years ago with Osama bin Laden?
Not to overdo his analogy, but the years since have brought a notable string of strikeouts. The administration would vigorously disagree, but just how much success can it genuinely claim in Syria, Egypt, Libya or even Iraq? Or the Russian reset? Or Ukraine? [snip]

There is no obvious game plan for Obama to bounce back. It would help if he and his team promised less and delivered more.

When asked why Clinton hasn’t done more to reach out to reporters over the years, one Clinton campaign veteran began to spin several theories. She was too busy, she was too prone to speaking her mind and the like—then abruptly cut to the chase:

“I swear those GOP bastards will make you hate them even when you are trying to find a way not to.”

I’m with you all the way, here. So, if you’re having a hard time supporting them, just give me a list of GOP candidates you want to win in November and I’ll be sure to send them some campaign money. Nothing like a little help from your friends.

Sorry for the sarcasm, I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning….

OT, but here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the political beliefs of the new French Prime Minister (since early April) Manuel Valls:

He is regularly classified as being in the “right wing” of the Socialist Party, with a similar approach to the German, Dutch and Scandinavian Social Democratic Parties. During the 2011 presidential primary, he defined himself as “Blairist” or “Clintonian“, and described his position as “in the tradition of Pierre Mendes France, Lionel Jospin and Michel Rocard”.

He advocates an “economically realistic” political speech without any “demagoguery”. He voices his dissent in the party by his vision of individual responsibilities (“The new hope that the Left must carry is individual self-realization: to allow everyone to become what which he [she] is”[11]) and his positions against a system where some people live only from national solidarity. Describing himself as “reformist rather than revolutionary,” he wants to “reconcile the left to the liberal approach.”

This is how “liberal centrist” is expressed in France. Watch out for the difference of English and French vocabulary.

Claiming Mendès-France, Jospin and Rocard as guiding lights makes him very popular in France. All three of these men were smart Clinton-style centrists that were popular and successful though none of them ever made it to the presidency.

Mendès-France was Prime Minister only shortly but was respected across the political spectrum. He was a left-wing member of the Radical Party; but “radical” did not (and still does not) have the same meaning or connotations in French and English. After escaping from prison under Vichy, he rejoined De Gaulle in England and De Gaulle appointed him to a ministerial position after the war. It was under him that the French negotiated an armistice with Ho Chi Minh but became embroiled in the Algerian war. His mistake came when he refused to support De Gaulle’s takeover of full powers in 1958.

Incidentally, the Radical Party, with a proud heritage all through the 20th century, still exists in France. It split up between Radicals of the left and right and those of the right gradually melted into the landscape of right-of-center parties. But the “Radicaux de Gauche” retain their name and consider themselves allied with the Socialist Party (one minister in Valls’ current government). These “Leftist Radicals” are situated in the “liberal” center of the political spectrum.

Early morning channel-hopping brought me to a rerun of CSPAN Washington Journal for Friday. The guest I saw is a professor and contributes to politico. He lambasted Boehner’s most noticeable challenger in Ohio primary. And the guy has been getting bad press for awhile. eg
Boehner’s opponent takes crude shots in ‘electile dysfunction’-themed ad
BY ALEXANDRA PETRI.April 14 at 3:00 pm
America, we have attained our final perfection.
Return to your homes. There is nothing more to see. A Cialis commercial met a campaign ad in a bar, had a few drinks too many, spent its entire production budget and spawned this: snip.
I’m J. D. Winteregg, and I approved this message. But I don’t golf,”http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/04/14/boehners-opponent-takes-cheap-shots-in-electile-dysfunction-themed-ad/

Maybe we have JD Winteregg to thank for moving Boehner off center. Reminds me.I need to send him a donation.

Jes, maybe it’s not that you got up on the wrong side of the bed. Maybe you also have “free-floating rage”. lol

I don’t support anyone in GOP. I only want the Dems defeated by someone, anyone. I wish we had a viable third party, so I could support a defeat of the Dems by the candidates from that party, but we don’t.

DETROIT – Veteran U.S. Congressman John Conyers does not have enough signatures to get on the Aug. 5 primary ballot, according to Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett.

Garrett told Local 4 on Friday that the signatures of two of Conyers’ circulators appear to be invalid.

However, she said this is not the final decision on the issue. That will come by May 7, following an investigation into a formal challenge of Conyers’ signatures.

If he doesn’t get on the ballot, Conyers will have to run as a write-in candidate for his 26th term. The 84-year-old Detroit Democrat is coming up on 50 years in the U.S. House of Representatives.

He needed 1,000 valid voter signatures to get his name on the ballot.

On Wednesday, one of the Deputy Clerks, who did not want to appear on camera, told Local 4 Conyers qualified with 1,193 total signatures. Conyers put out a statement saying the Clerk’s Office verified his petitions.

“I am pleased that the County Clerk has determined that there are a sufficient number of signatures to allow my name to appear on the ballot in the upcoming August 5th primary election. I look forward to a full and robust campaign in the primary and general elections,” Conyers’ statement reads.

However, Conyers’ statement was premature as Garrett now says Conyers does not appear to have enough valid signatures on his nominating petitions.

At issue are two of Conyers’ petition gatherers who apparently were not registered voters, as required by Michigan law, when they canvassed voters for signatures. That means any signatures they collected would be declared invalid and, apparently, that drops the 50-year Congressional veteran below the petition threshold to appear on the ballot..

This is an instance of Big Media doing its job. If not for reporters diligently checking and re-checking and challenging the corruption in the Clerks office they would have let Conyers illegitimately be placed on the ballot.

I have a need to post an off topic subject relating to another off topic post I made dissing mammograms. VERY recently there has been a blood test made available to the public, through their physician that accurately tests for 26 types of cancer, including breast cancer. It detects it in it’s very early stages, way earlier than a mammogram can.

On second thought, don’t call the Clinton’s. You screwed over your party, your voters, the rest of us that didn’t vote for you even if we are/were still registered Democrats.

Hillary knows you will try to blame Benghazi on her, so you are on your own Barack, and we will all suffer in one way or another until you pack your bags and go beg for another job. Go see your bros, maybe they will kiss your ass in another profession.

YOU SUCK AT BEING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALL THE WORLD KNOWS IT!

Here comes another woman that turns against her gender, form the DailyKookBeast…

Go home and bake cookies Hillary, glory in the afterlife of Bill’s Presidency. It’s too hard for you, the attacks will be terrible, you will be attackted for your age. Let some younger person run…

A-hole
—–

Former Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown has urged Hillary Clinton not to enter the race for the White House in 2016 — and instead enjoy her life as a soon-to-be grandmother and an ex-president’s wife.

Brown wrote in an opinion piece for The Daily Beast that the former Secretary of State should just have fun with the perks of the “post-presidency” and reject the chance to endure “the vile toxicity of the campaign experience and the grueling gridlock of the Oval Office itself.”

Brown, who co-founded the Daily Beast, noted that former presidents, such as George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and Clinton’s husband, Bill, are enjoying their time out of office far more than when they were in Washington, D.C.

Urgent: Who Is Your Choice for the GOP’s 2016 Nominee?

Calling it a “win-win,” Brown wrote in her guest column that “the only reason to run for the highest political office in the land is not the presidency but the post-presidency.”

She added that “for Obama and Michelle, it will be fantastic, because they are young enough to have a long, massive, wildly interesting presidential afterlife. While sitting presidents become more and more despised, ex-presidents become more and more popular.

“No longer being president does wonders for your morale. Even the Bushes have seemed happier out from under it. Big George went parachute jumping. Little George medicates memories of his Iraq mistake by painting not-bad pictures.”

Brown, who resigned as editor of the Daily Beast last year to launch Tina Brown Media, pointed out that 89-year-old Carter held “an audience spellbound” last month while talking about his “one-dollar-toilets-for-women” program in Ethiopia.

And noting that Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, is pregnant, Brown said, “Life for Hillary can get so deeply familial and pleasant, she can have her glory-filled post-presidency now, without actually having to deal with the miseries of the office itself.

“She is as adored as any ex-president already, she is making a ton of money, and she can expand the real passion of her life, her global mission to promote women’s rights, education, and political participation. The spotlight follows her and always will.”

But Brown warned, “If she becomes president at 68, it will be another press onslaught from hell and such a hog-tied two terms, only the festive delights of hip replacement surgery will await her by the time she gets out. Leave the presidency to the people who don’t know what she knows all too well: what it’s really like.”

Gowdy spoke with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren Friday evening and shared his thoughts on who should be on the committee, naming U.S. Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, as good choices.

Referring to himself as a “washed up prosecutor,” Gowdy said he will serve as a “summer intern” on the committee, if that’s what it takes to get to the truth.

Greta Van Susteren has been a journalist for CNN and Fox News channels since the 1990s. She has a reputation for being objective, and reporting only on stories that she finds to be truthful. She has been known to vet sources and facts herself.

When she reported on the 9/11 Benghazi scandal, she chronicled the Obama administration’s attempts to portray the attack as a conspiracy created by an American filmmaker’s anti-Islamic short film. As soon as it became clear that the incident was a terrorist attack, the administration started to withhold their information.

Now Susteren is claiming that the Obama administration failed to invite Fox News to the State Department conference bridge, even as they alerted other news agencies. Fox News has also been repeatedly

The OncoBlot Labs website pretty well lays out where they are in the trials and the basis of their science. It looks totally legitimate to me. You can judge for yourself. Insurance companies will classify it as experimental but the Lab tells me they expect to qualify by the end of the year.

My sister-in-law turned up with a “suspicious” mammogram and they want her to come back for more x-rays. Based on what I know of the mammogram test, I advised her to go for the OncoBlot test before she subjects herself to any more of that. My parents were not diagnosed with cancer until they were in their 70’s. So I am planning to get the Oncoblot test for my 60th Birthday. I will hopefully never have a mammogram.

POTUS motorcade departed WH at about 11:40 am and arrived at Fort Belvoir, Va. at 12:06 p.m., at which point motorcade pulled off from pool van. Pool did not see president.

Per White House, POTUS is playing golf with Marvin Nicholson, Joe Paulsen and Michael Brush.

Those three he’s playing with are, BTW, all relatively junior White House aides and regular Obama golf companions who won’t annoy the president with policy discussions while he’s trying to relax on the greens.

It has started as we expected at FOX News. Tonight Bret Beir had a special on Benghazi with a Republican panel…George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Mara Lisson and Stephen ? The report was working hard to tied BO and Hillary together on Benghazi along with the panel.

Shadow, Brown’s advice to Hillary that she should not run, but should just enjoy her life as a grandmother and whatthefuckever else is an a joke. What she’s saying is that Hillary is too old – which is BS. Brown’s statement that the only reason people run for president is the post-presidential life is absurd. She presumes to know a lot more than someone who hasn’t run for president can know. And her belief that MO and BO will have a wonderful post-presidential life because they’re still young, would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

BO needs to spend the rest of his life post-presidency, apologizing to Americans for screwing up their country – the one that he wants to transform and that Meechelle has never been proud of. I hope he moves out of the country. Maybe he can find a small country populated by really stupid people, who would be really glad to have him as their king. MO could then be a real queen, which is what she apparently, thought being FLOTUS was. The king and queen of Stupidville. Now theres a great “post-presidency” for the Obamas.

We can look forward to the Obamas’ exit from the WH for many reasons, not the least of which is the money we’ll save on trips, clothes, partays and damn golf balls. Another major benefit will that the media will STFU about him – hopefully.

Brown’s foolish advice borders on agist and sexist. She should be embarrassed.

WASHINGTON — THE First Family is all over the news, discussing the management of the economy, income inequality, raising the minimum wage, the vicissitudes of press coverage and the benefits of healthy eating.

Everywhere you look, the Clintons rule.

Bill popped up on the front page of The Times giving a speech at his alma mater, Georgetown University, in which he defended his economic policies and chastised the press for its tendency to create a “storyline” that doesn’t match reality. (Sort of like the storyline the Clintons created about Monica Lewinsky being a delusional stalker.)

Hillary’s Apache dance with the press is detailed in the new issue of Politico Magazine, a piece that got a lot more buzz than the news the White House was excited about on Friday: a sharp drop in the unemployment rate.

Chelsea is serenely smiling from the cover of Fast Company for a story on how “the product of two of the most powerful brands in the world” is “carving out her own identity — by joining the family business,” as vice chair in charge of shaping up the tangled finances of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Her impending baby is being treated with enormous fanfare and exhaustive political analysis, like America’s answer to Britain’s bonny Prince George.

Obamaworld was even paranoid that Hillaryland would hijack the B-list festivities associated with the annual White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend.

The former and future Democratic regime is clearly itching to get back in the saddle and relieve a president who is stalled on every front, and who never really got any joy from working the joystick of power or appreciated the value of the carrot-stick approach that helped Lincoln and L.B.J. bend history.

Both President Obama and Hillary have recently referred to leadership as a relay race. And if a fatigued and fed-up Obama looks ready to pass the baton early, the ravenous and relentless Clintons look ready to grab it — and maybe give him a few whacks over the head with it.

Obama’s reign has become increasingly bloodless, and while the Clintons are not new blood, they do convey more vitality than the formerly electrifying politician in the White House.

Things have now reached the point where it feels as though 42 and 45 have already taken over the reins of Washington power from 44, who is fading Snapchat-fast.
The Clintons now have Obama, as one top Democrat said, “totally at their mercy” because they “take the oxygen out of the room.”

Hillary’s stock is so high — almost as high as her speaking fees — that in The Daily Beast, Tina Brown urged the front-runner to skip the campaign and simply go straight to becoming “post-President.”

Just to make the Clintons feel completely at home as they ramp up to the restoration, there is even a congressional investigation spurred by the vast right-wing conspiracy.
House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he would call a vote to set up a select committee to look into the Benghazi debacle, and whether Congress was misled by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration.
As Slate’s Dave Weigel tweeted, “The nice thing about having a Benghazi select committee is you can roll it over into the Hillary presidency.”

Many of those who aroused the Clintons’ opprobrium and well-known taste for vengeance by supporting the rookie Barack Obama in 2008 thought they were headed to a fresh era in politics, moving past the gnarly braiding of the personal and political that led to chaos in the Clinton era.

But the Clinton machine, once described by David Geffen as “very unpleasant and unattractive and effective,” has a Rasputin resilience. And now those who broke away are in the awkward position of having to make nice with the woman they helped vanquish.

Samantha Power recently said that she regretted calling Hillary a “monster” and offered her new view: “She just brings such rigor and conviction to everything she touches.”

Claire McCaskill, who endorsed Obama in 2008 and said she didn’t want her daughter near Bill Clinton and confided to a friend that she was nervous to be alone in an elevator with Hillary, announced in June that she is “Ready for Hillary.”

Caroline Kennedy, whose endorsement in 2008 comparing Obama to her father was pivotal, told NBC’s Chuck Todd: “I would like to see her run if that’s what she wants to do. I think she would be great.”

And Geffen, who gave Obama his first big Hollywood fund-raiser in 2008 and broke with the Clintons because he felt they lied “with such ease, it’s troubling,” now says he will “absolutely” support Hillary in 2016, calling her “an extraordinary, smart, accomplished woman.”

Elizabeth Warren, who criticized Hillary in a 2003 book for an unprincipled stand on a bankruptcy bill, siding with the big banks she needed to bankroll her political career, lets Hillary off the hook in her new book.

Leon Panetta, who served as chief of staff for Bill Clinton and secretary of defense for Obama, told The Times that Obama had not yet defined America’s 21st-century role in the world.

The president who dreamed of being “transformative” seems bummed, and that’s bumming out Americans.

But when you talk about batting singles, you’re just asking to be overshadowed by the next big draft pick. If you’re playing small ball and you’re articulating your diminished expectations, it’s only natural that someone is going to fill the void.

Some Obama aides get irritated when Hillary distances herself from Obama and when her advisers paint her as tougher than Obama, someone who wouldn’t be afraid to drop the hammer and sickle on Vladimir Putin.

And some in Obamaworld think she could have skipped her $200,000-plus speeches to Goldman Sachs and helped the stumbling president make his push on health care, given that the push was focused on moms and kids, an area of interest for the woman who would be the first woman president.

But they were hoisted on their own petard. It was the lone-cat President Obama who ignored the usual practice in politics — dancin’ with those who brung ya and dismantling your bitter rival’s machine — and encouraged the view of Hillary as the presumptive nominee over his unfailingly loyal vice president, Joe Biden. Three of his key political advisers — Jim Messina, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart — have gone to super PACs supporting Hillary.

David Plouffe, the president’s former top political adviser, said Hillary could call him for advice and told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that “there’s very little oxygen” for another Democrat to challenge her.

As Obama has learned, to his dismay, there’s now very little oxygen for him, too.

Ohio primary is this week.
———————
This article has nothing good to say about Obama prospects & was published day before select committee news was released.

snip. Maureen Dowd and Dr. Haass are fair-minded, artful people. Neither has a bias against President Obama, nor does either want to find problems where they don’t exist. When they both ring alarm bells, it’s time to take notice. I think a little panic is in order.
Their criticisms focus mainly on foreign policy, but there is a lot more wrong with the Obama administration’s policies. Don’t forget, we just learned that gross domestic product growth was only 0.1 percent for the first quarter of 2014, and polls show that Democrats are almost in a full-out, every-man-for-himself, abandon-ship mode.
I’ve been at the White House when it has been taking a pounding from all sides. The inner circle gets smaller, and the rest of the staff tries to either put on a brave face or acknowledge the problems and quietly point fingers. Democratic insiders tell me the Obama inner circle now only consists of the president, Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and Chief of Staff Denis McDonough — and not everyone agrees on McDonough. Whether or not the president takes any criticism to heart and tries to change course seems unlikely based on what we have observed so far.
Every president experiences periods when he is unpopular or facing difficult decisions. But I don’t remember another president in my lifetime who has reached such a diminished state with so much time left in his term. We have more than two and a half years left under President Obama. We have to realize we will pay a price for this president’s lack of leadership. No one knows what the headlines will be next week, next month or next year, but nothing this president does seems to be shaping the world in a way that makes America stronger.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/01/the-insiders-the-white-house-is-taking-a-pounding-from-all-sides/

S, thanks for posting that MoDo article. I’m sure she’s pleased with the number of swats she took at the Clintons, even as she described Hillary’s power and political clout, even referring to her as “45”.

This statement about Obama is naive, and is a clear indicator that MoDo doesn’t really get the real Obama. He’s not the gentle soul she and others in MSM believe him to be:

” It was the lone-cat President Obama who ignored the usual practice in politics — dancin’ with those who brung ya and dismantling your bitter rival’s machine”.

Dowd should check out Big Pink’s articles about some of the ways in which Barack tried to take down Clinton and others – after he was in the WH. We know the thuggery in which his campaign engaged in order to get him selected president. Like others in media, Dowd seems to make the assumption that because Obama hasn’t stood up for this country and has been weak in dealing with foreign leaders, he’s a nice, gentle guy. He is as underhanded as anyone who has ever been in politics, and surrounds himself with ruthless friends – to get the dirty work done.

We haven’t seen much evidence thus far of the Clinton vengeance Dowd refers to (as if it were a bad thing). I hope we see more of it in the future. I hope that McCaskill remains afraid to be alone in an elevator with Hillary. Joining Ready for Hillary does not earn her a pass.

As for all the other backstabbers, I hope the Clintons have a surprise or two prepared for them, as well.

Tim Kaine is another Dem who sided with Obama in the primary, but now, loves him some Hillary. I Got this email yesterday. From Tim through Ready for Hillary PAC.

_______________
(snip)

In 2006, when I was serving as Governor of Virginia, I told my friend, then-Senator Barack Obama, that I would support him if he ran for president in 2008. I made my decision early because I figured that the sooner I started helping, the more helpful I would be. It was an historic effort that broke barriers and changed politics forever.

If Hillary Clinton decides to run for president in 2016, I know that she can achieve all that and more. The best thing for our country – our growing, diverse, dynamic, innovative country – is for us to do all we can to help Hillary Clinton get elected as our 45th President. I’ll be starting my fifth year in the Senate on Inauguration Day 2017, and she’s the partner I know I’ll want to be working with in the White House on all fronts.

But we can’t just cross our fingers and hope that she runs. There is too much at stake for that. Together, with one voice, we need to send a clear and unmistakable message that America is ready for Hillary.

” Maureen Dowd and Dr. Haass are fair-minded, artful people. Neither has a bias against President Obama, nor does either want to find problems where they don’t exist. When they both ring alarm bells, it’s time to take notice. I think a little panic is in order.”

_______________

MoDo definitely does not have a bias agains Obama, neither is she “fair minded”, as the article later suggests. In 2008, she acted as if Obama was a rock-star and she was some teen-aged groupie.

free: In 2008, she acted as if Obama was a rock-star and she was some teen-aged groupie.
———————————————————–
True; tnx for reminder.
————————
Everything getting so crazy. After all the months and suffering of real people in getting Ocare good enough for POTUS & that’s not saying much, he uses it as comedy material last night and “correspondents” respond via implied intimidation over the years – as he expected they would.
————————–
Crazy #2:
CA Dem Rep. Schiff calls on party to boycott new Benghazi investigationhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/04/dem-rep-schiff-calls-on-party-to-boycott-new-benghazi-investigation/

The Dems are scared to death, but they should have enough sense not to fight the investigation. Makes ’em look really guilty. They should at least pretend they want the truth to come out. They need to take a lessons from the Pubs – and pretend it’s all about justice for victims.

Of course, the Pubs would appear more concerned about the real issue – rather than using it to gain political points – if they had approached it differently from the beginning – but, especially now. They think it’s their ticket to destroy Hillary. Most don’t want it to cause a huge deal for Obama. They fear that would appear racist, or the press would make it appear so.

It is extremely disrespectful IMO when they try to sound as if they want justice for the victims, because they cannot hide the glee in their voices, as they try to lay this on Hillary.

I have my own theory about what happened the night of 9/1/2012. Where was Obama?

It is common knowledge that O is a substance abuser. That did not go away when he got elected POTUS. He behaves like a chemically dependent person. He had that big fundraiser the next day and I think he took a lot of meds to get to sleep and they could not wake him up in a manner they could get anything lucid out of him. I’ll bet it was Jarret who gave the stand down order to the military and then stood by it, like the delusional nut-job she is. It was probably a big power trip for her, too. So what could the rest of the crew do but hang out like good lemmings, watch the horror and try to figure out how to keep themselves from being blamed.

Then the cover-up was perpetrated from Jarret and Obama. When they come from him, I wonder if she will fall on her sword.

Yes, a core issue is why was the U.S. apparently less prepared on the tenth anniversary of 911. However, there are something like 294 U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. The cost to amp up coverage for the tenth anniversary would have been brutal.

Crazy #2:
CA Dem Rep. Schiff calls on party to boycott new Benghazi investigation
———————————————————-
Upon further reflection the better analysis revolves around the source of Schiff’s belligerence. 🙂
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Lu4PUMA – yeah. We hear how he does not take bad news well. Imagine the worst news is “your eminence, you must clear your head now.

Flashback: circa May 10 2013. Peggy Noonan. The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi.
Excerpt from link below: Think of that. They can’t give answers when the story’s fresh because it just happened, they’re looking into it. Eight months later they don’t have anything to say because it all happened so long ago. Think of how low your opinion of the American people has to be to think you can get away, forever, with that.http://on.wsj.com/176CPJl [link is not as I expected – it took me to “streaming” and a request for money so this is all I have left. BUT IT IS GOOD!]

Word is Joe Biden was the star of the WH Correspondent’s dinner. He was not present, but Barack played a video of Joe escorting Julia Louie-Dreyfus star of the TV show Veep around the WH. Joe was dressed in leather jacket, reportedly going for a Steve McQueen (RIP if you can Steve. This has to be upsetting ) look. Supposedly, the video has gone major viral.

If you though Barack was to blame for this country’s foreign relations problems and the fact that much of the world sees America as weak, according to article below by a major Obama-lover/apologist the problems are only to a very small degree because of Obama. He’s “cerebral” he “thinks things over”. Guess who is really to blame. According to this author the culprits are Americans, in general, who like to see action; Bush 1 and BILL CLINTON.

Now you know. So, don’t be blaming this mess on the guy who has been in the WH for 6 years now. It is not his damn fault. It’s the fault of presidents who were in Oval office in the 1980s and 1990s. After spinning this scenario, Friedman must have been dizzy as hell. Probably had to have help getting out of his office.

________________

SundayReview | OP-ED COLUMNIST

It’s Not Just About Obama
MAY 3, 2014
Continue reading the main story
Thomas L. Friedman

THERE has been a festival of commentary of late bemoaning the pusillanimous foreign policy of President Obama. If only we had a president who rode horses shirtless, wrestled a tiger or took a bite out of a neighboring country, we’d all feel much safer. Your Honor, I rise in — partial — defense of Mr. Obama.

Let me start by asking a question I’ve asked about other countries: Is American foreign policy today the way it is because Obama is the way he is (cerebral, cautious, dispassionate) or is Obama the way Obama is on foreign policy because America is the way America is today (burned by two failed wars and weakened by a great recession) and because the world is the way the world is (increasingly full of failed states and enfeebled U.S. allies)?

The answer is some of both, but I’d put a lot more emphasis on the latter. Foreign policy, our ability and willingness to act in the world, is about three things: interests, values and leverage. Do we have an interest in getting involved in Syria or Crimea, are our values engaged, and — if either is true — do we have the leverage to sustainably tilt things our way at a price we can afford? Leverage is a function of two things: the amount of economic and military resources we can bring to bear and the unity of purpose of our partners on the ground and our allies elsewhere.

I’d argue that a lot of what makes America less active in the world today is a product first of all of our own diminished leverage because of actions taken by previous administrations. The decisions by the Bush I and Clinton teams to expand NATO laid the seeds of resentment that helped to create Putin and Putinism. The Bush II team not only presided over two unsuccessful wars, but totally broke with American tradition and cut taxes instead of raising them to pay for those wars, weakening our balance sheet. The planning for both wars was abysmal, their execution worse and too many of our “allies” proved to be corrupt or used our presence to prosecute old feuds.

Anyone who thinks that the American people didn’t notice all this, please raise your hand. As someone who wanted us to partner with Iraqis to try to build a democracy there — in the heart of the Arab world after 9/11 — I sure noticed, and I learned several things: Where we have real partners, who share our basic values and are ready to fight for them themselves — like the Kurds, who have built an island of decency that is the great unsung success story of the Iraq war — limited U.S. help can go a long way. Indeed, has anyone noticed that the two biggest reform successes in the Muslim Middle East today — Tunisia and Kurdistan — are places where our recent involvement was nil. They wanted it, and they built it.

Maureen Dowd and David Geffen can go to Hell. They’re on the same list as Brazille and McCaskill. It’s too late for all of them to make up for what they did in 2008.
___________________________________________

The decisions by the Bush I and Clinton teams to expand NATO laid the seeds of resentment that helped to create Putin and Putinism. The Bush II team not only presided over two unsuccessful wars, but totally broke with American tradition and cut taxes instead of raising them to pay for those wars, weakening our balance sheet. The planning for both wars was abysmal, their execution worse and too many of our “allies” proved to be corrupt or used our presence to prosecute old feuds.

There is an enormous amount of theorizing about what the “real story” behind Benghazi really is. To me it’s always been obvious. The White House was caught off guard — for reasons stemming both from ideology and incompetence — on September 11, 2012. As they have after virtually every other (jihadist) terrorist attack on Americans, they acted as if it had absolutely nothing to do with them. As with the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and other Islamist assaults, there’s always some other reason for the bloodshed, some attempt to claim, at least for a while, that this was an “isolated incident” with no broader implications for the War on Terror or Obama’s foreign policy. Admittedly, even this White House understood that spinning the Benghazi attack as an isolated incident wasn’t going to work (such intense spinning could risk irreparable scrotal torsion). So they went with the story about the video.

Boehner taps rising star to lead Benghazi investigation.
… Mr. Gowdy, 49, is in just his second term, but he has already gained a reputation as a relentless investigator…”Trey Gowdy is as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come,” Boehner said….http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/5/boehner-taps-rising-star-lead-benghazi-probe/
#####################
In other news that does not deserve a link, Mooch’s basketball coach brother has been fired. Or let go. Reported by Chicago’s own WGN. Maybe now tv can talk about this instead of Sterling.
Earlier today I had to endure BabaWawa & The View ladies ad nauseum about the old guy who almost got the NAACP lifetime achievement award, and prior – was McHale too tough on Christie. That question never discussed, but it allowed them a reason to rebroadcast more of McHale than I’d seen anywhere else.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) confirmed today that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) will serve as chairman of the select committee to investigate the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Gowdy’s name quickly rose to the top of the list after Bohener announced the formation of the committee on Friday.

“With four of our countrymen killed at the hands of terrorists, the American people want answers, accountability, and justice,” Boehner announced in a statement. “Trey Gowdy is as dogged, focused, and serious-minded as they come. His background as a federal prosecutor and his zeal for the truth make him the ideal person to lead this panel.”